New evidence for the Arkenstone-Silmaril case

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

If the Silmaril had been floating around in magma for a long time, wouldn't it have become crusted with lava? Then the dwarves could have basically scraped it off.

the cutting and fashioning could be the scraping off of accumulated gunk from the surface of the gem.

I think this idea can be discounted with relative ease. 'Cutting' is the process of chipping away pieces of a raw gemstone once it has been freed of the rock in which it has been found, and were this not enough Tolkien adds 'and fashioned': the Arkenstone had been cut and polished just as any stone must be if it is to achieve the visual effect that the gem has on Bilbo. Both the author of the work and the Dwarves who found the Arkenstone would have been well aware of that fact, but even if the phrase "cut and fashioned" was intended to mean "cleaned of enclosing material" one would expect there to be some memory of this: finding a ready-cut gemstone in a natural seam would be like digging out a complete candelabrum from a vein of silver. There is simply no such thing as a naturally-occurring cut stone, and to find one would be so great a marvel that it would be remembered in legend for centuries, even millennia. This is why it is a stumbling block to the Arkenstone being a Silmaril.

Another block in my opinion is the absence of any evidence that Tolkien intended this. The recovery of one of the Silmarils by the Dwarves appears to run counter to all his predictions about them, and one would expect there to be some mention of so major a divergence somewhere in The History of Middle-Earth or his letters explaining it or at least indicating that he was considering making the connection. I just don't see the similarity between the Arkenstone and the Silmarils as a particularly compelling piece of evidence: Silma is also (according to the Silmarillion) "Like the crystal of diamonds", and I think we're all agreed that a diamond is not a Silmaril. Perhaps the Arkenstone is a diamond.

As for the longing of Thorin and his folk, and the great avarice pertaining to the Arkenstone, why need we look any further than the fact that it was a huge gem, cut by a master craftsman? Imagine the Second Star of Africa from the Imperial State Crown, only twice the size and up for grabs and you can probably imagine the severity of the "dragon sickness" it could cause. If it were part of an ownerless hoard that made a combination of Sutton Hoo, the Mildenhall Treasure and the Crown Jewels look like the contents of a second-rate pawn shop it becomes a lot easier to appreciate how battles might be fought over it. They have certainly been fought over less.

I'm not about to discount the parallels between the Arkenstone and the Silmarils, though. Thorin almost echoes the Oath of Fëanor when he says in Chapter XVI

...I will be avenged on anyone who finds it and withholds it.

To me, though, this is not an indication that the Arkenstone of Thráin is a Silmaril, but evidence that Tolkien had the great Fëanorian jewels very much in his mind when writing The Hobbit. The 1930s were a time during which he was writing the Lay of Leithian and revising the extant Silmarillion with a view to publication, so it seems to me not at all surprising that he should include a great gem that causes strife. In any case the divisive effects of great wealth was a matter close to Tolkien's heart, as we can see from its frequent embodiments, and indeed from this passage:

...he did not reckon on the power that gold has upon which a dragon has long brooded, nor with Dwarvish hearts. Long hours in the past days Thorin had spent in the treasury, and the lust of it was heavy on him. Though he had hunted chiefly for the Arkenstone, yet he had an eye for many another wonderful thing that was lying there, about which were wound old memories of the labours and the sorrows of his race.

The Battle of the Five Armies arises from the regrettable fact that rather too many people have a claim on the treasure, not least the men of Dale, who have killed the dragon, and whose stolen goods are intermingled with the treasure of Erebor. Only to the Dwarves is the Arkenstone a great temptation, and that because it is an heirloom of Thorin's house that has become a symbol of the Kingdom Under the Mountain. For me, though, the Heart of the Mountain is no more a Silmaril than Thorin is Maglor.

[ April 28, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

[*Varda*]

I couldn't find many references to the size of the Arkenstone, but it did manage to fit in Bilbo's deepest pockets. Also, it is said that

His small hand would not close about it

This makes the Arkenstone seem quite big, in terms of jewels, even if hobbit hands are quite small.

Considering that the Silmaril could be set in the Nauglamir, it sounds as though the Arkenstone was probably larger. I don't see a stone in a necklace being of such a size that a hand couldn't close around it.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Well, it's smaller than a basketball then (which is about the sized I'd pictured it the first time I read the Hobbit).

I'd actually always pictured the Silmarils as looking horrid in the Nauglamir, because they have always appeared in my mind about the size of tennis balls. A bit gaudy for a necklace in my opinion.

But with the idea of tennis ball sized Silmarils, a tennis ball sized Arkenstone seems ok too.

Disclaimer: I'm interested in the idea, but very highly doubtful [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Sophia

[lindil]

Saucepan wrote:

Well, JRRT came out with The Hobbit before the Silmarillion. So, the arkenstone was, in reality, created (by JRRT) before the silmarils were. If JRRT wanted to have the arkenstone be a silmaril, then he would not have made the point that the silmarils could not be fasioned or cut, as the arkenstone was.

Even though the Hobbit was published after the Silmarillion, the silmarilli had already been written about in detail and in synopsis long before.

My own take on it is that Tolkien sub-conciously felt the Lost Tales/Silmarillion to be 'buried' and the Arkenstone was something of a sub-concious symbol of the whole earlier work, coming to the 'surface'.

[The Saucepan Man]

The age old questions "What is real?", "What is literal?", "What was the final version?", "What were his final ideas?", and so on. I'd rather not open up that can of worms in yet another thread, which is why I suggest sticking to things less open for interpretation.

I can understand there being debate when talking about JRRT's unpublished and/or incomplete works or where there is ambiguity in the published works (for example, concerning Balrog's wings). But my understanding is that anything stated in the published works completed by JRRT, even the Hobbit, may be taken as canon.

And, if I am wrong on that, I still prefer to rely on what JRRT did write, rather than what he didn't. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Excellent post, as always, Squatter. I find myself in complete agreement with everything that you have said. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Edit: Just so there is no misunderstanding, it was MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie that wrote that, lindil. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I was aware JRRT had written many elements of the Silmarillion prior to conceiving the Hobbit.

[ April 28, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Findegil]

I unbury this very old discussion because I think "Return to Bag-End" can give some more fuel for this discussion. The editor John D. Rateliff brings up strong linguistical connections and points out that the importance of the Silmarils was much less developed in the earlier phases of Tolkiens work on the legends of the First Age. Also he makes a strong point that up to that time the fate of the Silmarils was often changed.

What he does not address are the contrary arguments. Therefore that seems to be or task.

Three arguments I will address in one stroke
- The dwarves are recorded to cut and fashion the Arkenstone
- The Arkenstone seems to be greater the the Silmaril
- The Silmaril are much brighter then the Arkenstone

Considering that we already discussed the ability of volcanoes to create gemstones, I would say that an indestructible crystal (like a Silmaril) flouting in the magma would be a perfect core of crystallisation for such gemstones (equally if we are here speaking of crystallization out the fluid or recrystallisation of already solidified material). If that is accepted, I would imagine the dwarves to find a big but “normal” gemstone in which the Silmaril was embedded. As such they had to cut and fashion it like any other gemstone to get nice a looking crystal out of it. Since it is one of the goals of jewel smiths get a big gem, the dwarves did not totally remove the crust of normal gemstone completely.
Thus the Arkenstone was cut and fashioned by the dwarves, it was larger and since the crust did blur the pure light of the Silmaril it gave much less bright light.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Lindale]

Nice arguments everyone, for those pros and cons the silmaril-being-the-arkenstone. Although little Lindale's opinion is this:

‘And they knew that those jewels could not be found and brought together again, unless the world be broken and remade.’

Logically, an argument with an AND has to have all its premises true to make it valid. So... the Arkenstone can't be a Silmaril, it just isn't valid at least logically. Even if we take the argument that the world has been remade by the fall of Numenor.

I don't know how to put links, but you can Google it: pictures of our very own Mayon Volcano, a perfect cone. Unless I am heavily mistaken it is on the plains of Bicol region. So I can't think it's valid to assume that the Lonely mountain is an inactive volcano. Then again, how many volcanoes are there in Middle Earth? Mount Doom, if you will the Lonely Mountain, and what else? I've read somewhere back in high school earth science that if the earth had no volcanoes, then random parts of the land would have lava gushing upwards (I can't find the right words, but I hope you get it.)

And this. At some point in the past, the lonely mountain, if it is truly a volcano, should have erupted at least once in over five thousand years. After the fall of Beleriand Elves have lived in Rivendell, Lorien, Mirkwood, and Eriador, not to mention the mortals in Dale and the ancestors of the Rohirrim--do they not have any records of any eruptions, anyone noticing that smoke and lava running down the slopes? But if it isn't a volcano, then how did the Arkenstone come from the Lonely Mountain? Unless it was an extraterrestrial diamond (though it is unlikely): a meteor or an asteroid, one of Varda's stars (because where would it have come from anyway, but whether it is Varda's star or not is quite irrelevant), falls (remember that Eol got his black metal, what's it called again, from a meteorite) and thus delivers a carbonado kind of diamond.

So there. I might be really wrong about this, but... I disagree with the Lonely Mountain being a volcano and the Arkenstone being a Silmaril. Oh well. A fun thread!

[Aiwendil]

Logically, an argument with an AND has to have all its premises true to make it valid. So... the Arkenstone can't be a Silmaril, it just isn't valid at least logically. Even if we take the argument that the world has been remade by the fall of Numenor.

I don't quite follow you. Forgive the completely irrelevant foray into logic, but meseems that this quote:

‘And they knew that those jewels could not be found and brought together again, unless the world be broken and remade.’

. . . would be parsed thus in sentential logic:

~(Br & R) -> ~(F & BT)

. . . where 'Br' is 'The world is broken', 'R' is 'The world is remade', 'F' is 'The Silmarils are found', and 'BT' is 'The Silmarils are brought together again'. Strictly speaking, the statement allows the Silmarils to be found (even if the world is not broken and remade) as long as they are not brought together again. And if the world was indeed 'broken and remade' then nothing whatsoever is ruled out.

Of course, that kind of literal-minded reading is rather out of place here.

Anyway, I still haven't finished Return to Bag-End, but I look forward to what Rateliff has to say about the Arkenstone.

[Lindale]

Touche, Aiwendil, about the lgic thingy. I'l have to review it again!!

[Palrun-Enda]

I have to agree with Findegil here. When I first read the Hobbit, after the Silmarilion, The fact that the Arkenstone had its own light made this idea occure to me.

We know that the elves were able to essentially mass produce gems in Valanor. Baring the constant assistance of a Valar or Maya, they had to have been able to produce the heat and pressure necessary to create these stones.

If they could do this in their forges, I don't see how the heat of the fires of the worlds heart and the pressure from thousands of tons of rock couldn't do the same.

I recall a passage in the Silmarilion where it talks about the steps in the creation of diamond which I recall had opal and pearl as intermediate steps. Also, in the description of the creation of the silmarils there was a comment about how the other gems of the elves had no inner light.

These two fact, to me, point to the Arkenstone being a silmaril. I disagree that the long darkness was the cause of its dimness. All three silmarils were in Angband in an essentially light less state for centuries. Instead, I belive this is further evidence for the Arkenstone as the silmaril of Earth.

If the silmaril was in the molten heart of the earth, a layer of lesser gems could have accumulated on it. This substance would be softer then the silmaril (although everything is softer then the silmarils) and would have been a less perfect transmitter of light to and from the gem.

The other substance might also explain the lack of lusting after the gem. As elves and men were not effected everywhere in Arda by the silmarils so there must have been a factor of distance. Also when in the bowels of Carcharoth the hunters did not lust after the gem. This points to other material insulating the children against the desire to possess the silmarils.

I do wonder though why Ulmo or Osse have not gotten the other one. I mean they have free reign of the ocean and the thing is impossibly valuable and extraordinarily beautiful. It seems like lazyness that they haven't recovered that one.

Or perhaps they have and Tolkien didn't relate it. Or perhaps the Valar have some knowledge we were not given.

Just my ideas.

[Trumpkin Mahalul]

The following essay was composed four years ago or so, originally for the LotRPlaza boards. It is written as addressed to Dwarves living late in the Fourth Age or after:

What do we know about the Heart of the Mountain, gentle-dwarves and ladies of the Khudzul? It was found by the children of Durin beneath the Lonely Mountain, and it shown with its own inner light, as even the hobbits attest in the Red Book of Westmarch (p. 201). It was cut and fashioned by Dwarven hands after it was dug from the mountain, but the internal fire was native to its crystal. It is said that when Thorin II, Oakenshield returned to the Mountain, (he with whom the stone was buried at last), the only light visible in the great hall of the dwarves when the dragon had fled was from the Arkenstone. The Hobbits’ records also relate that 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 sort of flowery writing a Hobbit would use, of course, but not inaccurate. The Hobbit was by his own account drawn by its enchantment. Baggins also states that there could not be two such gems, … in all the world. More on this later.
When King Thranduril of the Elves of Mirkwood gazed upon the Arkenstone it is said that he stood up in amazement, although in his long reign his eyes were used to things of wonder and beauty. This qualifies the Arkenstone as a very wondrous jewel indeed. What kind of a stone must it be to raise an Elf-king, even a lord of the Green Elves and not of the great Eldar, to his feet by the unveiling thereof. This response has been seen before.
Among the Sindar of Beleriand there was held for a time another jewel so beautiful. It is said that it was brought to Thingol of Doriath out of the Iron Crown by the work of Beren Ermabwed, at the cost of his hand and of his life. Beren brought it as dowry for the hand of Luthien Tinuviel whose lay the Elves so often sing, and the tales of the First Age and the Lost Tales of the Elves say much more on these things. Later it passed into the possession of the Dwarves of Nargothrond for the making of the unhallowed Nauglamír or Nauglafring from the gold of Mím, chief among the Noegyth Nibin who cursed his hoard at his death. More tales surround that one gem than all others, and even now its radiance can be seen as Eärendil shines in Kheled-zâram at our eastern gate.
In the records of the Eldar’s Elder Days, it is said that the Three Stones of Fëanor even in the darkness … of their own radiance shown like the stars. But at the same time, they rejoiced in light and received it and gave it back in hues more marvelous than before. It is also said of their substance that like the crystal of diamonds it appeared, and yet was more strong than adamant, so that no violence could mar or break it within … Arda, that is, within this world beneath the heavens. Also is it recorded among the Lost Tales (at The Coming of the Elves) that when that jewel-smith of Kôr made the first of the Silmarilli, that it shown with its own wizardous radiance in the uttermost dark; and he set it therein and sat a very long while and gazed at its beauty. Men and Elves, a Vala and Maiar, have in turns beheld and desired these most beautiful of jewels. Even our own fathers from Tumunzahar (named Nogrod by the Elves of Doriath) coveted the one they set in Dwarven (though long before, Elvish) gold. But from the days when the Silmarilli were lost at the breaking of the world, no other gem has burned thus with its own fire, and none has forced an Elf-lord to his feet, but the Arkenstone of Thrain.
But the Arkenstone was cut and fashioned by the dwarves, according to Baggins’ record, who had dug it from the heart of the mountain. Thus it is apparently not a Silmaril, as these were unbreakable and, by extension, uncuttable. But look at this: among the Lost Tales it is told that the body of a Silmaril was of such perfect glass as [Fëanor] alone could make to contain the light of the Trees of Valinor. Thus the crystal is of a perfect and hardened glass, unmarred by the violence of this world. But how do we re-temper steel, but with fire? And what does our weak and ordinary glass do when fire consumes the room? It melts. The longer the glass is immured within the fire, the softer it becomes, the more of its shape is lost. Even the perfect glass of Fëanor may be weakened by fire, given enough heat, and enough time. It is told in the last chapter of the Records of the Elder Days that after the battle that overthrew the Enemy in Thangorodrim, the two sons of Fëanor who yet lived sought to steal the last of the Silmarilli from the camp of the Valar, but their claim upon them was lost, and the hand of Maedhros who incited the theft was burned by the one he took for himself, as was his brother’s hand who cast the third Silmaril into the sea at last. But of Maedhros is written that, being in anguish and despair he cast himself into a gaping chasm filled with fire, and so ended; and the Silmaril that he bore was taken into the bosom of the earth. Thus we are given a Silmaril dropt into fire beyond that of any dragon, or of ANY forge of Elves or Dwarves. The fire within assuredly protected it in part form the fire without, but not utterly to my mind. The crystal was changed, and the stains of evil hands were burned away. There were from the fall of the Hells of Iron to the founding of the Kingdom of Erebor more than an Age—to be precise, the Second Age. It was thirty-four hundred years, and twoscore and one, from the loss of the Stones of Fëanor to the war of the Last Alliance that ended the Second Age. Thereafter were a score of centuries, less one year, before Thrain I was crowned first as King Under-the-Mountain, and it was in his days that the Arkenstone was found. In sum it is fifty-four centuries and twoscore years from the loss of Maedhros in the fire to the finding of the Arkenstone of Thrain, and while there is no record of where Maedhros fell, all Khazad know of the treasure of Erebor and where, in Thorin’s Tomb, may still be found the Heart of the Mountain. Let no one desecrate the King’s tomb for even such a stone!
Yet I propose that even so, the Arkenstone that lies on Thorin’s breast beneath the Mountain is older than the mountain itself. Fifty-four hundred and forty years may have demeaned its perfect tempering, that the Dwarves who found it in latter years might cut it to their own hearts’ vision, but the fire in its heart was still that true fire from beyond the world: mayhap when the Western Lands were lost and Elvenhome was sundered from the mortal shores, (and from all mortal ships save one, and that Eriol’s), the Silmaril itself upthrust in the place where it had fallen—or the place to which the streams of the earth had carried it—and as the Meneltarma of the Númenoreans sank below the sea, the Lonely Mountain of the Dwarves rose up where Maedhros fell, and at its heart the Arkenstone shone in the darkness, the Silmaril of the Khazad.
— Trumpkin Mahalul

[References as follows:
Tolkien, J. R. R. The Hobbit or, There and Back Again. Houghton Mifflin: Boston. (1966. etc.) Not at Home; A Thief in the Night.
----- The Fellowship of the Ring. Houghton Mifflin: Boston. (1954, etc.) Prologue I: Concerning Hobbits.
----- The Return of the King. Houghton Mifflin: Boston. (1955 etc.) Appendix A, III: Durin’s Folk; Appendix B: The Tale of Years (Chronology of the Westlands).
----- The Silmarillion. Christopher Tolkien, ed. Del Rey / Ballantine: New York. (1977 etc.) Of the Silmarils and the Unrest of the Noldor; Of Beren and Lúthien; Of the Ruin of Doriath; of the Voyage of Eärendil and the War of Wrath; Akallabéth.
----- The Book of Lost Tales I. Christopher Tolkien, ed. Houghton Mifflin: New York. (1983 etc.) The Coming of the Elves and the Making of Kôr; Gilfanon’s Tale: The Travail of the Noldoli and the Coming of Mankind.
----- The Book of Lost Tales II. Christopher Tolkien, ed. Del Rey / Ballantine: New York. (1984 etc.) The Tale of Tinúviel; The Nauglafring; The History of Eriol or Ælfwine and the End of the Tales.
----- The Lays of Beleriand. Christopher Tolkien, ed. Del Rey / Ballantine: New York. (1985 etc.) The Lay of Leithian.

[Inziladun]

Interesting essay.
I've never bought the idea of the Arkenstone being a Silmaril. Most of the reasons why not can be read here.
Also, wasn't Thranduil a Sindarin Elf, probably from Doriath? It is said in UT that he fashioned his halls after Menegroth, and I wouldn't think that likely if he'd never seen Thingol's home.
Assuming Thranduil had dwelt in Doriath before its ruin, I think the odds are for his having laid eyes on a Silmaril at some time. Therefore, he would know whether the Arkenstone was one, or just another supremely beautiful jewel.

[Badenov]

I just finished rereading The Hobbit, first time rereading since having read the Silmarillion some 25 years ago (I know, poor showing for a fan!), and I immediately jumped to the same conclusion: That gem seems awfully like a Silmaril!

So I jumped on the internet to see if anyone else had thought so, and Google brings me directly to this forum and this thread some nine years after its creation.

The parallels between the Arkenstone and the Silmarils are uncanny, and in addition, there is a great desire in any scholarly pursuit to unearth hidden connections.

A couple things first that seem important:

1. The size of the Arkenstone: It had to fit in Bilbo's pocket. And a hobbit's pocket can't be that big. Thorin was obsessing over the Arkenstone, if Bilbo had a big lump wrapped in a cloth in his pocket, Thorin would presumably have inquired. If not held him upside down and shaken him. It may not have fit entirely in the hand of a 3-foot person. But for a human, that's 2-4 years old. So, not a large hand at all. Age 3-6 years, if we assume a 3.5 foot height. So, much larger than your diamond wedding ring, but certainly no larger than, for instance, a superball. This isn't really perinent to if it's a silmaril, but I wanted to bring it up.

2. The others' reactions: The elvenking was wildly surprised, Gandalf not so much. Presumably Gandalf knew, or knew of, the Arkenstone from before Smaug drove the dwarves out of the Lonely Mountain. But he never mentions anything useful to regular folks, so what he keeps to himself could be anything.

3. No other stone that was made shone with inner light (I read that in this thread, and no one seemed to take issue with it).

4. While there's a lot of discussion on both sides of the 'the dwarves cut and shaped the Arkenstone' vs 'chipped off rock to expose what was inside', I think that 'finding a perfectly shaped stone in a shell of rock' would be remarkable enough in its own right to be remembered that way.

So I find my own opinion swaying from the initial OMG, it's a Silmaril!

But ...

What if the Arkenstone was a naturally occuring stone with it's own inner light? Not light from the Two Trees, but some natural source (Moonstone, or what have you). A similar stone might in turn have inspired the creation of the Silmarils, but brought to its most magnificent possible state, using the light of the Two Trees as its source rather than whatever lay within the Arkenstone type gem. Very little is said about their creation and what was going through Feanor's mind when he did so, even The Silmarillion presents his motives phrased as speculation.

Silmaril or not, it'd certainly catch the attention of the Elven king, for the similarity it shares. Even if he'd seen a silmaril, a naturally glowing gem has to be pretty unique. (I at first thought that since he was a Dark Elf and had not been to Valinor, he would not have seen a Silmaril before, but I gather from the posts in this thread that he had in fact seen them.)

And if the Arkenstone was a naturally-occuring (if wildly rare) gem, it might then have been possible for the dwarves to shape the raw gem into its magnificent state.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Badenov

I just finished rereading The Hobbit, first time rereading since having read the Silmarillion some 25 years ago (I know, poor showing for a fan!), and I immediately jumped to the same conclusion: That gem seems awfully like a Silmaril!

So I jumped on the internet to see if anyone else had thought so, and Google brings me directly to this forum and this thread some nine years after its creation.

The parallels between the Arkenstone and the Silmarils are uncanny, and in addition, there is a great desire in any scholarly pursuit to unearth hidden connections.

A couple things first that seem important:

1. The size of the Arkenstone: It had to fit in Bilbo's pocket. And a hobbit's pocket can't be that big. Thorin was obsessing over the Arkenstone, if Bilbo had a big lump wrapped in a cloth in his pocket, Thorin would presumably have inquired. If not held him upside down and shaken him. It may not have fit entirely in the hand of a 3-foot person. But for a human, that's 2-4 years old. So, not a large hand at all. Age 3-6 years, if we assume a 3.5 foot height. So, much larger than your diamond wedding ring, but certainly no larger than, for instance, a superball. This isn't really perinent to if it's a silmaril, but I wanted to bring it up.

2. The others' reactions: The elvenking was wildly surprised, Gandalf not so much. Presumably Gandalf knew, or knew of, the Arkenstone from before Smaug drove the dwarves out of the Lonely Mountain. But he never mentions anything useful to regular folks, so what he keeps to himself could be anything.

3. No other stone that was made shone with inner light (I read that in this thread, and no one seemed to take issue with it).

4. While there's a lot of discussion on both sides of the 'the dwarves cut and shaped the Arkenstone' vs 'chipped off rock to expose what was inside', I think that 'finding a perfectly shaped stone in a shell of rock' would be remarkable enough in its own right to be remembered that way.

So I find my own opinion swaying from the initial OMG, it's a Silmaril!

But ...

What if the Arkenstone was a naturally occuring stone with it's own inner light? Not light from the Two Trees, but some natural source (Moonstone, or what have you). A similar stone might in turn have inspired the creation of the Silmarils, but brought to its most magnificent possible state, using the light of the Two Trees as its source rather than whatever lay within the Arkenstone type gem. Very little is said about their creation and what was going through Feanor's mind when he did so, even The Silmarillion presents his motives phrased as speculation.

Silmaril or not, it'd certainly catch the attention of the Elven king, for the similarity it shares. Even if he'd seen a silmaril, a naturally glowing gem has to be pretty unique. (I at first thought that since he was a Dark Elf and had not been to Valinor, he would not have seen a Silmaril before, but I gather from the posts in this thread that he had in fact seen them.)

And if the Arkenstone was a naturally-occuring (if wildly rare) gem, it might then have been possible for the dwarves to shape the raw gem into its magnificent state.

This actually may bring up an interesting point. You have mentioned two possibilites for the Arkenstone, that is is a Simaril or natural. However there exists in ME a third possibility sort of in the middle,namely that the Arkenstone is not a Silmaril but it IS an Elf Gem, a product of Noldor craftmanship. Just bear with me now.
We know that the Noldor had the skills to make gems that while no where near a Silmaril in majesty were yet far fairer than any found naturally in the ground. Moreover many of these gems have unsual properties with regards to light. Some can transmit light (i.e. images), Such as the Palantiri, assuming you consider the Palantiri "gems" (they are described as being made of crystal, so they presumably fall into the definition). Some seem to be able to magnify light, like the Ellesar (The fact that Aragorn, when the fellowship parts at Isengard, is able to hold up the Elessar have the sun hit it and make a green fire so noticeable that it is remarked upon as being like fire by individuals sitting on horses a fair distance away from him indicates properties above and beyond those of an ordinary chunk of emerald or even a green diamond (my own personal belif of what sort of stone the Ellesar is). There is Galadriel's vial (again it's crystal, so that may mean "gem" or not) which can call up light on cue (of course that light likey comes from the water but the case may help). Finally and most convicingly, I remeber reading somwhere in the Unfinished Tales in one of the footnotes, that some elves had gems that did as the Arkenstone did, produced light continually and were, kept in filligree holders and used as lanterns. Granted these don't match up exactly to the Arkenstone (they're described as blue and the Arkenstone is white) but the elves may have made more than one kind. Such a lantern gem, lost by an elf (they were made to sound fairly common and utiliarian at some point in elf history) buried deep and then found by the dwarves might fit the Arkenstone defintion nicely

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Lindale

And this. At some point in the past, the lonely mountain, if it is truly a volcano, should have erupted at least once in over five thousand years. After the fall of Beleriand Elves have lived in Rivendell, Lorien, Mirkwood, and Eriador, not to mention the mortals in Dale and the ancestors of the Rohirrim--do they not have any records of any eruptions, anyone noticing that smoke and lava running down the slopes.

But if it isn't a volcano, then how did the Arkenstone come from the Lonely Mountain? Unless it was an extraterrestrial diamond (though it is unlikely): a meteor or an asteroid, one of Varda's stars (because where would it have come from anyway, but whether it is Varda's star or not is quite irrelevant), falls (remember that Eol got his black metal, what's it called again, from a meteorite) and thus delivers a carbonado kind of diamond.

So there. I might be really wrong about this, but... I disagree with the Lonely Mountain being a volcano and the Arkenstone being a Silmaril. Oh well. A fun thread!

Apart from the fact that volcanoes go extinct eventually, they can also be dormant longer than five thousand years. There are many like that near where I live. So I don't think we need an "extraterrestrial" origin for the Arkenstone.

But, like you, I also disagree that the Arkenstone is a silmaril, because a.) it is my belief that Tolkien would have left much more definite hints if it were the case, and b.) the "for" case relies on what seem to me some very strained arguments, as:

I'd say that one could say (contrary to the opinion that someone had previously expressed) that the cutting and fashioning could be the scraping off of accumulated gunk from the surface of the gem.

If the silmaril was in the molten heart of the earth, a layer of lesser gems could have accumulated on it. This substance would be softer then the silmaril (although everything is softer then the silmarils) and would have been a less perfect transmitter of light to and from the gem.

The other substance might also explain the lack of lusting after the gem. As elves and men were not effected everywhere in Arda by the silmarils so there must have been a factor of distance.

All very ingenious, but my general feeling is that if you have to jump through so many hoops in order to make your case, it's probably wrong.

(And sorry, Alfirin, but the same applies to Arkenstone-as-Fëanorian lamp.)

[Morthoron]

Simply put, on a number of occasions a Simaril is referred to as a "holy jewel", and burns the hands of those who, shall we say, are not worthy of handling it. I would be hard put to find a reason for Thorin, ultimately a very greedy dwarf, being worthy of holding a Silmaril.

In addition, Maglor and Maedhros rid themselves of their Silmarils along the shores of the Belegaer, not eastward over two mountain ranges and several hundred miles inland near Erebor; therefore, it really is nonsensical to even have this discussion. Silmarils do not have the ability to fly, which is what would be required to support such a hypothesis.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

In addition, Maglor and Maedhros rid themselves of their Silmarils along the shores of the Belegaer, not eastward over two mountain ranges and several hundred miles inland near Erebor; therefore, it really is nonsensical to even have this discussion. Silmarils do not have the ability to fly, which is what would be required to support such a hypothesis.

Just to play devil's advocate...
If the Silmaril really did get carried by magma, couldn't it easily get carried by the convection currents in the mantle? (If we assume that Middle Earth at that point worked in the same way that our world does.)

[Findegil]

If the Silmaril really did get carried by magma, couldn't it easily get carried by the convection currents in the mantle?

Especially if we consider that at the same time Beleriand was sinking very rapidly which for sure did create very turbulent movements underneath.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Nerwen]

I'm sorry, but that's just another example of what I'm talking about, and has already been suggested– in fact as I understand it, the "Silmaril-Arkenstone" theory assumes something of the kind. Again that's what's wrong with it– it rests on a whole series of improbabilities.

Let's just examine the whole case, shall we?

*If the Silmaril got carried hundreds of miles beneath the Earth's crust to Erebor

and

*if it somehow became completely coated with "lesser gems" in the process

and

*if this took place *really quickly*, between the War of Wrath and whenever Erebor became inactive (which can't have been long afterwards and was just as likely earlier)

and

*if the dwarves, despite being master craftsmen, somehow failed to recognise they were dealing with a cut stone, even while they were shaping it themselves...

...you see the problem?

[skip spence]

I'm with Nerwen here, it's highly unlikely that the Arkenstone is meant to be one of the Silmarils.

That said, there are sure lots of similarities between the two gems and they are hardly coincidental. Tolkien probably had the Silmarils in mind when he described the Arkenstone - he of course created the backstory of the Silmarillion long before he ever thought of Hobbits - and recycled that particular idea (a beautiful, radiant gem-stone that stirs up greed despite it's pure origins) for his new children's book, among many other recycled ideas from the Silmarillion, a work he probably never thought would see the inside of a printing press anyway.

[Badenov]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I'm with Nerwen here, it's highly unlikely that the Arkenstone is meant to be one of the Silmarils.

That said, there are sure lots of similarities between the two gems and they are hardly coincidental. Tolkien probably had the Silmarils in mind when he described the Arkenstone - he of course created the backstory of the Silmarillion long before he ever thought of Hobbits - and recycled that particular idea (a beautiful, radiant gem-stone that stirs up greed despite it's pure origins) for his new children's book, among many other recycled ideas from the Silmarillion, a work he probably never thought would see the inside of a printing press anyway.

Based on facts, I agree with you. But there is a part of me that says in the face of logic that Prof. T was never that freewheeling with his subjects, there has to be something there.

But in that line of thinking, if there was any connection, however remote, some footnote would find the light of day. The conclusion that remains, is that there is no connection whatsoever and that the subjects are so remote and disparate that Prof T wasn't thinking about the Silmarils at all when describing the Arkenstone.

Or ... the idea that the Arkenstone was related to the Silmarils in whichever way (it was one, was related to one, reminded someone of one, they were glowy), he felt, would overshadow even the importance of the One Ring, and in any event would take quite a lot of pages for the backstory to explain what one of these Holy Jewels was.

On a side note, in rereading Silmarillion, in Of the Flight of the Noldor, Morogoth holds all 3 Silmarils in a crystal casket in one hand. So they're not the size of apples unless he has really huge hands. Which I suppose he could have, if he wanted. But I'm reimagining them the size of marbles now.

[Galadriel]

I'm completely with Nerwen and Morthoron.

Plus, I don't think Tolkien was the type to leave things like that. If the Arkenstone truly were a Silmaril, then it would have played some bigger part than being taken out of the earth, only to be put back again. I'm pretty sure it would have popped up somewhere else (like the Ring did).

And, well, I just don't think Dwarves (or anyone else) could have actually cut the Silmaril. Also, the fact that it actually lay by a dead Dwarf...it just doesn't fit. If a Silmaril had to be anywhere, it would either be in Valinor or in the depths of the earth, unfound. I think that's where it belongs. *sigh* Don't take me seriously. I'm rattling nonsense.

However, after reading this:

"Arkenstone is a modernization of an ancient word which appears in the Edda as jarknasteinn and in Old English as eorclanstán.

Note that Tolkien used the word eorclanstánas to refer to the Silmarilli in Old English texts by Eriol"

I'm not so sure. Tolkien played with words like little boys play with knives...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I'm completely with Nerwen and Morthoron.

Seconded!

And, well, I just don't think Dwarves (or anyone else) could have actually cut the Silmaril. Also, the fact that it actually lay by a dead Dwarf...it just doesn't fit. If a Silmaril had to be anywhere, it would either be in Valinor or in the depths of the earth, unfound. I think that's where it belongs. *sigh* Don't take me seriously. I'm rattling nonsense.

I think you have a very good point, actually. I agree that it's unnatural for such a powerful thing as a Silmaril to just slip out of a story like that. A silmaril needs a more 'dramatic' end, that wouldn't really be an end, just more of a pause... well, now I'm rattling nonesense! But something grand like the end of The Silmarillion.

And another point on the same note: The way the silmarilli ended up were in the water, the sky, and the ground/fire. That creates a perfect balance. *Note to self: the Elven Rings were also lke that.* If you look at some early cultures, you'll find a similar balance of nature. If one of the silmarilli was to be taken away from it's proper place, the balance would be broken, wouldn't it? And Eru knows what consequences that could cause!

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

well, now I'm rattling nonesense! But something grand like the end of The Silmarillion.

And another point on the same note: The way the silmarilli ended up were in the water, the sky, and the ground/fire. That creates a perfect balance. *Note to self: the Elven Rings were also lke that.* If you look at some early cultures, you'll find a similar balance of nature. If one of the silmarilli was to be taken away from it's proper place, the balance would be broken, wouldn't it? And Eru knows what consequences that could cause!

Yes, I have that effect on people.

And I think we do know what would happen if the balance was disturbed. *cough* Global warming *cough* Except if we were in ME the Sea would have swallowed us up by now

[Mellon]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Why? JRRT tells us that the Arkenstone was cut and fashioned by the Dwarves, so why should it not be true? Or are we free to disregard anything written in the Hobbit that tells of things that happened long in the past but cannot be sustantiated by a character with first hand knowledge or corroborated by evidence elsewhere in JRRT's writings?

I've never actually posted an online opinion before and I am certainly no expert like many people here seem to be but I'd like to raise an issue I have reading the posts that dismiss the idea of the Arkenstone being a Silmaril simply because of the 'cutting and fashioning' statement. As I understand it the arguments against are these
1) a Silmaril cannot be marked/cut in any way
2) it is not possible/plausible for the Silmaril to have become encrusted with lava/gems
3) the fact that Tolkien actually wrote those words is more important than the fact that the story related in 'The Hobbit' is supposed to be Bilbo's account
4) from statements 1-3 it must be accepted that Tolkein intended to convey the impression that the Arkenstone had been cut by dwarves and therefore could not be a Silmaril

In favour of the for argument I submit the following
1) I think we can all agree that the Silmarillion makes clear that the Silmarils are peerless gems, the most incredible ever seen
2) IMMEDIATELY before (about 8 lines to be precise) the words 'cut and fashioned' appear is this statement 'indeed there could not be two such gems...even in all the world' (emphasis is mine)

I submit that the doubters can't have it both ways, either Tolkien chose each word himself and intended the Arkenstone to be an even greater gem than the Silmarils (being natural, and without peer when the Silmarils are 3) OR the statement about the Heart of the Mountain being 'cut and fashioned' was merely a confused and overwhelmed Hobbit's assumption on being presented with a hoard of dwarf-wrought treasures; just as the statement about the Arkenstone being one of a kind was.

I'm not a student of Tolkien, or of literature. As is probably evident from my post I'm in law, and perhaps someone can counter this but that is my take on the matter, for what it is worth.

[Nerwen]

Welcome to the downs, Mellon!

Unfortunately, I'm not at all clear what your argument is, here– unless it's that "well, Bilbo isn't necessarily a reliable witness". Which may be so, but which is hardly a "case" in itself, and anyway cancels itself out, if you see what I mean.

Or is it that

"If

Arkenstone = marvellous jewel

And

Silmaril = marvellous jewel

Then

Arkenstone = Silmaril"?

–Which is simply re-stating the original case.

And if it's neither of those, then would you mind explaining again?

[Nerwen]

Mellon, I think what's really confusing me is that your "for" argument could just as easily be an "against" argument.

See, if you're going to take the "indeed there could not be two such gems...even in all the world" literally, (as if it were, oh, I don't know, given under oath or something ), then I should say it completely demolishes the Silmaril-Arkenstone case through simple arithmetic.

Wish I'd thought of that one!

[Mellon]

Thanks for the welcome!

My point is this;
the key argument that those who DON'T believe that Arkenstone is a Silmaril seem to be making is that the text of the Hobbit says that it was cut by the dwarves which would not be possible were it in fact a Silmaril.

But in the same paragraph it is described as being without peer in all the world which would, I agree, be inconsistent with it being a Silmaril (since there are three of those) but would also contradict the idea of the Silmarils being the most amazing gems in existence (which is, I think we can agree, explicitly stated in the Silmarillion) as it would suggest that the Arkenstone was MORE RARE being as it were one of a kind.

The argument goes, at least as I understand it, that Tolkien was stating that the Arkenston had been cut, rather than that being Bilbo's opinion. In my view this is implausible as it would also impute that Tolkien intended to suggest that the Arkenstone was rarer than the Silmarils themselves!

But perhaps I just really want them to be one and the same.....it makes the whole adventure more magical somehow!

[Inziladun]

Welcome indeed, Mellon!

Personally, I think it's rather thorny to describe how the Silmaril that Maedhros had dropped in or near Beleriand even got to Erebor. That's a bit like dropping a wedding ring into a geyser at Yellowstone and having it found later in Montreal.

[Galadriel55]

Welcome to the Downs, Mellon!

Originally Posted by Mellon

In my view this is implausible as it would also impute that Tolkien intended to suggest that the Arkenstone was rarer than the Silmarils themselves!

Possibly rarer, as the Arkenstone is one and the Silmarili are three.* However, the Arkenstone is just a jewel found in stone, like any other jewel, except bigger. The Silmarili are unique from all other stones because they are unbreakable, and also because they shine with the light of the Two Trees.

*But the fact that the Silmarili are the most beautiful jewels ever can still hold.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mellon

Thanks for the welcome!

My point is this;
the key argument that those who DON'T believe that Arkenstone is a Silmaril seem to be making is that the text of the Hobbit says that it was cut by the dwarves which would not be possible were it in fact a Silmaril.

But in the same paragraph it is described as being without peer in all the world which would, I agree, be inconsistent with it being a Silmaril (since there are three of those) but would also contradict the idea of the Silmarils being the most amazing gems in existence (which is, I think we can agree, explicitly stated in the Silmarillion) as it would suggest that the Arkenstone was MORE RARE being as it were one of a kind.

The argument goes, at least as I understand it, that Tolkien was stating that the Arkenston had been cut, rather than that being Bilbo's opinion. In my view this is implausible as it would also impute that Tolkien intended to suggest that the Arkenstone was rarer than the Silmarils themselves!

Thanks for the clarification, Mellon.

My argument in my previous post was not meant to be taken seriously, of course– just to point out that an implausibility is better than an impossibility. The thing is, *both* problems only arise if you take the bit about the Arkenstone's uniqueness as being absolutely literal and authoritative (which is what your argument rests on, as I understand it).

Now, let's look at the context.

Originally Posted by The Hobbit

It was the Arkenstone, the Heart of the Mountain. So Bilbo guessed from Thorin's description: but indeed there could not be two such gems, even in such a hoard, even in all the world.

That's just showing Bilbo's reasoning process: "Oh right, this thing must be the Arkenstone! Can't be two of them!"

Then (in slight "flashback") we get a detailed description of him finding the jewel, and of the jewel itself:

Originally Posted by The Hobbit

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 mountain long ago, it took all light that fell upon it and changed it into ten thousand sparks of radiance shot with glints of the rainbow.

At this point the narrative has shifted modes: we're being given that information directly, not as a "guess" or "thought" of Bilbo's. Otherwise it would probably go something like, "Bilbo guessed that it had been cut by the dwarves..."

In other words, one is subjective third-person, the other objective– and so there is actually no contradiction.

Originally Posted by Mellon

But perhaps I just really want them to be one and the same.....it makes the whole adventure more magical somehow!

Let me put it this way: the Arkenstone can be thought of as a Silmaril "by ancestry". We know Tolkien had The Silmarillion in mind when writing The Hobbit. (In fact, there is good evidence that he originally conceived it as taking place much earlier, and in Beleriand.) I don't know enough about this to say whether or not he ever intended to include an actual Silmaril in The Hobbit, but he must at any rate have based the Arkenstone's description on them.

EDIT: I know The Hobbit is presented as Bilbo's autobiography, ("There and Back Again"), but again I wouldn't take that too literally, since within the story, the omniscient narrator is certainly not Bilbo. (Not unless Bilbo is supposed to be suffering from Gollumesque level of insanity, anyway!)

[FlimFlamSam]

Mellon spoke: [But perhaps I just really want them to be one and the same.....it makes the whole adventure more magical somehow!]
An excellent and the best written essay I have seen on this topic can be found in The History of the Hobbit: Part 2 Return to Bag-End pgs. 603-609.

Needless to say, also reading the development of The Hobbit itself.
If you get a chance to ever pick up these two books (Part 1 entitled Mr. Baggins) it is a worthy purchase.

As an aside, it is also one of the few places where the original text of Riddles in the Dark pre-Lord of the Rings can be found as there were apparently only about 17,000 copies made collectively in the UK and US before it was revised to conform with the Lord of the Rings; along with essays on Gollum himself, the riddles, the Ring, and historic influences regarding magical invisibility in this chapter. The books have essays on relevant topics for each chapter, including the aforementioned Arkenstone/Silmaril/Gem-necklace of Girion/Nauglamir essay.

[Galin]

Rateliff does write 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). 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...

'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,' because the Sketch and the 1930 Qenta are still relatively close in date to the writing of The Hobbit.

'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. OK, 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).

[Formendacil]

For what it's worth, the peerless quality of the Arkenstone could be precisely because the Dwarves cut it. When Bilbo recognises that there could not be two such stones in the whole world, he might be noticing the flawless gem-cutting craftsmanship of the Dwarves as well as the enormous size of the flawless jewel. This would be congruent with Tolkien's general presentation of Middle-earth as beset with the "long decline" from original greatness into later imitation. It would be entirely consistent for the Dwarves to never again be capable of cutting so well another Arkenstone--even if one ever turned up again to be cut. The Dwarves of Thorin and Dáin's day were no longer the Dwarves who had lived in Moria (as they would have been in Thráin I's day) or even those of pre-Smaug Erebor. The Kingdom Under the Mountain would flourish again... but it would not be the Golden Age.

Also, as a somewhat impish aside, the comment that there could not be two such things in the world need not indicate at all that the Arkenstone is the greatest or most beautiful gem in the world... though it is clear from the text that the Arkenstone wasn't the ugliest gem in the world...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galin

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).

Okay, that was just a speculation– and of course even direct evidence wouldn't make the Arkenstone itself a Silmaril.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

The Silmarili are unique from all other stones because they are unbreakable, and also because they shine with the light of the Two Trees.

I would also note that at Smaug's liar, the third time Bilbo went down the tunnel, was described as absolutely dark. Once torches were lit, the Arkenstone reflected light, but it did not glow on its own.

Is the Arkenstone ever described as giving off light on its own?

[oddkins]

Originally Posted by blantyr

I would also note that at Smaug's liar, the third time Bilbo went down the tunnel, was described as absolutely dark. Once torches were lit, the Arkenstone reflected light, but it did not glow on its own.

Is the Arkenstone ever described as giving off light on its own?

Well, this quote does seem to imply that...

Originally Posted by The Hobbit

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 mountain long ago, it took all light that fell upon it and changed it into ten thousand sparks of radiance shot with glints of the rainbow.

[blantyr]

Another relevent quote from The Hobbit.

Near the bottom, as well as he could judge, Bilbo slipped on his ring and went ahead. But he did not need it: the darkness was complete, and they were all invisible, ring or no ring. In fact, so black was it that the hobbit came to the opening unexpectedly, put his hand on air, stumbled forward, and rolled headlong into the hall!

There he lay face downwards on the foloor and did not dar to get up, or hardly even to breathe. But nothing moved. There was not a gleam of light -- unless, as it seemed to him, when at last he slowly raised his head, there was a pale white glint, above him and far off in the gloom.

This would confirm that the Arkenstone is a light source, not just a reflector. The description of the light intensity is not convincing, though, nor are there tales of the Arkenstone burning the hands of any evil one who holds it.

I remain dubious. The Arkenstone just is not described as bright enough to be placed in the sky as a star.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by The Hobbit

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 mountain long ago, it took all light that fell upon it and changed it into ten thousand sparks of radiance shot with glints of the rainbow.

I would suggest that the Dwarves could not possibly "cut and fashion" a Silmaril. It would be impervious to their earthly tools. Again, the Silmarils are sacred, and Morgoth himself was caused great agony at the jewel's touch, it burned Charcharoth's stomach, and burned the hands of Maedhros and Maglor. It would certainly cause pain in the hands of any greedy Dwarf, Thorin included. And even Bilbo, who walked about with the Arkenstone in his pocket, had no effect from the stone -- in direct proximity to the One Ring! One would think that such a sacred and living jewel would certainly react to the presence of such an abominably evil thing in direct opposition to it.

As someone mentioned "literary borrowing" in the case of the Arkenstone, wherein Tolkien transfered some of the qualities of a Silmaril to describe a gem of like appearance, he did the same when describing the ElfKing's subterranean manse in Mirkwood, which is a near identical description to Menegroth, the city of King Thingol in Doriath. Like but not identical.

I am not sure why this inane debate continues.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I am not sure why this inane debate continues.

Is not insane debate the purpose of these forums?