|
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
|