New evidence for the Arkenstone-Silmaril case

[Huinesoron]

I recently saw a satirical discussion asserting that 1) the Arkenstone was a Silmaril, 2) Gandalf recognised it and deliberately hid the whole thing, and 3) this is why he was so fervently unwilling to recognise the One Ring as yet another artefact of Power picked up by that same blasted Hobbit sweet NIENNA. All in fun, but it brought me back here.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Let's imagine Maedhros' "fiery chasm" is, or shortly after gave rise to, a rhyolitic volcanic eruption. That's the kind of eruption that forms obsidian - black volcanic glass. The Silmaril could have easily been encased in the stuff, and fairly near the surface. Of course, you'd need to be a miner to retrieve it, and fireproof to boot.

Oh yeah them. ^_^ Obsidian is probably the sharpest blade you can get - in modern times there have been experiments with using it for surgical scalpels - so I can easily imagine the dwarves of the Blue Mountains finding it and going 'score!'. So they chip away at it, hauling it away in chunks - and then they find a piece which seems to glow with its own light...

Man, that Huinesoron chap is such a clown. Obsidian? The Arkensil being mined in the Blue Mountains and lost in Erebor? The direct statement in the narrative of The Hobbit is just a lie? What a fool (Tookish or otherwise).

Obviously the Silmaril was carried from the wreck of Beleriand in a lava tube, probably when Sauron disrupted the magma systems of the world to build himself a volcano down in Mordor. At some point (probably before it moved, but maybe in a deep lava tube under Erebor), it encountered conditions of such high temperature and pressure that it became a nucleation site for a gigantic diamond. It is this - the diamond shell around the Silmaril of Maedhros - that the Longbeards found, cut, and shaped.

This solves a bunch of problems! It was cut by the Dwarves - "it" being the diamond, not the Silmaril itself. It didn't burn Bilbo (/Thorin/Smaug) because he only touched the diamond. It was bigger than a Silmaril (probably), because of the diamond. Gandalf and Thranduil didn't recognise it because what they saw was a diamond.

But a glowing one. I only know of three glowing rocks in the history of Arda, and one of them's up in space. If the Arkenstone is not a Silmaril, then what exactly is it?

But where did the carbon for that huge diamond come from? Well, it's a bit unpleasant, but... how much carbon is there in an Elvish body? Maedhros jumped in holding the blessed thing, right?

hS

[Priya]

I think we should heed Tolkien’s last known thought on the matter. Per the 2023 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Revised and Expanded Edition & Letter #283a of 12 January 1966:



“… only one of the silmarils is now visible: … The other two were lost, in the depths of the sea, the other under the earth, until the end of the world.” (my underlined emphasis)

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Priya

I think we should heed Tolkien’s last known thought on the matter. Per the 2023 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Revised and Expanded Edition & Letter #283a of 12 January 1966:

“… only one of the silmarils is now visible: … The other two were lost, in the depths of the sea, the other under the earth, until the end of the world.” (my underlined emphasis)

It's still underground! It just had a brief excursion above by way of a Hobbit, barely worth mentioning.

Can something be "lost" if it is physically in someone's possession? Absolutely! "Painting in pensioner's house was lost Vermeer", "my long-lost brother lived right next door to us all along", "I lost my glasses; they were on my head the whole time". The key is that the relevant people didn't know they had the thing.

But yes, the whole idea is very silly.

hS

[Priya]

Hello Huinesoron

The key is that the relevant people didn't know they had the thing.

Don’t you think Tolkien is a ‘relevant’ person?
Wouldn’t he be the most ‘relevant’ of all ‘people’?
In fact wouldn’t he be more in the ‘know’ about the fate of the silmarils for his mythology than anyone?

I do understand and acknowledge your examples on ‘lost’. One could also argue that “end of the world” meant end of the ‘old’ world - changed after the fall of Númenor. However I think, when it comes to this particular letter (#283a) these are not natural or straightforward interpretations.

Tolkien offered up some unasked for extra information in his short correspondence. In my opinion it’s quite a stretch to assume there was anything devious, overly clever or a technicality involved with his use of the word “lost”. In this instance, given the nature and context of the correspondence, a found but not recognized situation doesn’t reconcile as ‘lost’ - at least for me!!