New evidence for the Arkenstone-Silmaril case - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

bin · 05-02-2021, 02:38 AM

I realize I am several years late to the party at this point, but I was just now reading about the Silmarils and how some have posited that it is possible that the Arkenstone is one of them. I read this thread and went back to the Silmarillion and in my mind it seems possible, if improbable. However, in the world of fiction anything that is possible may happen if the author deems it, and without the word of Tolkien for or against the theory, I don't believe we can conclude either way that it is or isn't.

Obviously any evidence for the Arkenstone being one of the Silmarils is purely circumstantial: they are both shiny rocks that glow and hold sway over the wills of those around them. I am not here to discuss evidence that they are the same — simply to argue against the evidence to the contrary.

Two of the most common arguments that they must not be the same stone in this thread are as follows: Silmarils burn not only the hands of any evil being that holds them, but also any mortal; and that it is said the dwarves cut and refined the Arkenstone. Both are taken directly from the Silmarillion. However, upon further inspection, they are not the rock solid rebuttals they seem.

First, while it is indeed said upon the creation of the Silmarils that they will burn the hands of any mortal that holds them, however, later it is said that the stone "suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not". This clearly contradicts the account that Varda rendered them untouchable by morals, and leaves room for the possibility that the stone could have also been touched by the later mortals that came into contact with the Arkenstone without being burned.

As for the claim that the stone could not be cut and refined by the dwarves, in the passage describing the stone it says "Like the crystal of diamonds it appeared, and yet was more strong than adamant, so that no violence could mar it or break it within the Kingdom of Arda.". First of all, we already know that adamant can be cut into a jewel due to the crafting of Nenya by the elves. Second, it says that violence cannot mar it, but by cutting facets it can be argued that far from impairing the Arkenstone, they refined the appearance. Finally, we know that it cannot be broken, but they Arkenstone still exists and its power remains intact, so this line of reasoning is unclear at best.

These are my responses to the most common issues with this idea. Let me know if there is anything glaring I have missed as this is my first post (if anyone will notice this on such and old thread).

05-02-2021, 02:38 AM	#11
bin Newly Deceased Join Date: May 2021 Posts: 2	I realize I am several years late to the party at this point, but I was just now reading about the Silmarils and how some have posited that it is possible that the Arkenstone is one of them. I read this thread and went back to the Silmarillion and in my mind it seems possible, if improbable. However, in the world of fiction anything that is possible may happen if the author deems it, and without the word of Tolkien for or against the theory, I don't believe we can conclude either way that it is or isn't. Obviously any evidence for the Arkenstone being one of the Silmarils is purely circumstantial: they are both shiny rocks that glow and hold sway over the wills of those around them. I am not here to discuss evidence that they are the same — simply to argue against the evidence to the contrary. Two of the most common arguments that they must not be the same stone in this thread are as follows: Silmarils burn not only the hands of any evil being that holds them, but also any mortal; and that it is said the dwarves cut and refined the Arkenstone. Both are taken directly from the Silmarillion. However, upon further inspection, they are not the rock solid rebuttals they seem. First, while it is indeed said upon the creation of the Silmarils that they will burn the hands of any mortal that holds them, however, later it is said that the stone "suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not". This clearly contradicts the account that Varda rendered them untouchable by morals, and leaves room for the possibility that the stone could have also been touched by the later mortals that came into contact with the Arkenstone without being burned. As for the claim that the stone could not be cut and refined by the dwarves, in the passage describing the stone it says "Like the crystal of diamonds it appeared, and yet was more strong than adamant, so that no violence could mar it or break it within the Kingdom of Arda.". First of all, we already know that adamant can be cut into a jewel due to the crafting of Nenya by the elves. Second, it says that violence cannot mar it, but by cutting facets it can be argued that far from impairing the Arkenstone, they refined the appearance. Finally, we know that it cannot be broken, but they Arkenstone still exists and its power remains intact, so this line of reasoning is unclear at best. These are my responses to the most common issues with this idea. Let me know if there is anything glaring I have missed as this is my first post (if anyone will notice this on such and old thread).