New evidence for the Arkenstone-Silmaril case

[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!!