Bilbo´s treachery

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55;702826[...

But the nature of Bilbo's act groups the Dwarves into one group, like it or not. One rotten apple spoils the bunch?

Well, in this case, yes. This particular apple is the proclaimed and recognized leader of their company and the bunch doesn't do anything to stop him. I know that a few of them are disagreeing with Thorin, but they remain idle, while the rest of the bunch is supporting his course.

Thorin's course of action might easily lead to their death, either trough starvation and illness (due to the siege), or due to a battle, even though there isn't a real necessity or profit, at the time. Thorin and company are willingly gambling their own well-being for a surplus of a few percent. I think that justifies Bilbo (or any of the dwarves) to act against said course of action. Being 'dishonest' is a reasonable price to pay in this situation.

[Zigûr]

I think the situation is a good example of how in The Hobbit Professor Tolkien juxtaposes the "modern" and "heroic" modes, with Bilbo being, or at least trying to present himself as, a businesslike character with an arguably "pragmatic" approach while the Dwarves exist in a heroic/romantic framework, caring about their treasure and driven by fairly unswerving loyalty to their king, even when his decisions seem irrational or potentially dishonorable.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I think the situation is a good example of how in The Hobbit Professor Tolkien juxtaposes the "modern" and "heroic" modes, with Bilbo being, or at least trying to present himself as, a businesslike character with an arguably "pragmatic" approach while the Dwarves exist in a heroic/romantic framework, caring about their treasure and driven by fairly unswerving loyalty to their king, even when his decisions seem irrational or potentially dishonorable.

We never find out what measure of Bilbo's treachery was motivated by the then hold the ring exerted over Bilbo

We don't know whether or not he would have conceived the plot to place the dwarves on the back foot had there been no ring

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

We never find out what measure of Bilbo's treachery was motivated by the then hold the ring exerted over Bilbo

We don't know whether or not he would have conceived the plot to place the dwarves on the back foot had there been no ring

I don't see how that changes the issue. The Ring certainly helped Bilbo execute his plot, and maybe he wouldn't have dared to do such a radical thing without invisibility, but the fact remains that he wasn't going to take Thorin's attitude lying down. As for the Ring's hold over Bilbo - what does that have to do with anything?

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I don't see how that changes the issue. The Ring certainly helped Bilbo execute his plot, and maybe he wouldn't have dared to do such a radical thing without invisibility, but the fact remains that he wasn't going to take Thorin's attitude lying down. As for the Ring's hold over Bilbo - what does that have to do with anything?

What does anything have to do with anything, really, except as a discussion point or random expression of curiosity.

[Zigûr]

Yes given that the Ring was not conceived of as an evil object at the time, and as I'm fairly sure Professor Tolkien did not revise those parts of the text after he did conceive of it that way, the role of the Ring does not seem especially relevant to me.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Yes given that the Ring was not conceived of as an evil object at the time, and as I'm fairly sure Professor Tolkien did not revise those parts of the text after he did conceive of it that way, the role of the Ring does not seem especially relevant to me.

Look. I recall seeing in the prose, Gandalf looking sideways at Bilbo about some of his behaviour. Do you recall that or not?

[Ivriniel]

He was writing on a version on the Hobbit in December 1937. The book involved a series of starts.

The story of the One Ring --was quick -- to emerge. And his Silmarillion stuff was his earlier works, and as I recall, during earlier years after WWI. Ah God, we all know this stuff here, don't we?

The Lord of the Rings, as a title was conceived in Spring of 1938. Not published until later--we all know that--so what.

So, Zigur, what's your point. And also Galadriel, what's yours?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Do you recall that or not?

Are you talking about the "queer look" that Gandalf gives Bilbo in Chapter 5? I think that this may be a revision, but it doesn't change the fact that the material in Chapters 13 to 17 dealing with the Arkenstone does not appear to have been revised, which would show that Professor Tolkien wrote Bilbo's actions that way before he conceived of the Ring as being an evil influence. Maybe in hindsight the Ring could be hypothesised to have had a role, albeit one never stated as such by Professor Tolkien, but there was definitely a time in the published history of the text when it did not.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

So, Zigur, what's your point.

My point is that the Ring probably didn't influence Bilbo to treachery, or at least Professor Tolkien probably didn't mean it that way, because when he came up with that narrative he had not yet conceived of the Ring as a corruptive object which influenced people to do evil things.
Maybe if you treat the narrative as a consistent whole it could be considered, but I'm merely saying that from a certain point of view, external to the narrative, it doesn't seem like we're meant to think that the Ring influenced Bilbo in this way. If you were to read The Hobbit in isolation, for instance, the Ring's influence would not be evident.

EDIT: I was once able to find a page which systematically listed all of the revisions made between the first and later editions of The Hobbit but at present I can't find it...
EDIT 2: It's this page, but it only lists the revisions made to "Riddles in the Dark", which was after all the most substantial place where changes were made. There were other changes as well, but I'm fairly certain the idea of Bilbo giving the Arkenstone to Bard was present from the beginning. I believe the revisions outside of "Riddles in the Dark" were fairly minor.