New evidence for the Arkenstone-Silmaril case

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by bin

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.

I am firmly in the "no obviously it is not a Silmaril" camp, but I accept that a flimsy case could be made for the Arkenstone being a Silmaril. Though in my view it entails more than one leap of faith to arrive at that conclusion.

Anyways, I guess it could be that the dwarves, due to their origin and unknown destiny, were allowed to handle a Silmaril. However arguing that they should be able to do damage to a Silmaril, just as long as they made sure to categorize it as "improvements" seems like one such leap.

Furthermore I think it undermines the very core of the Silmarillion if Feanor's work could so easily be improved. These are jewels so fair that the very fate of Arda depends upon them, and apparently they could also do with a bit of a refurbishment...

It is one thing to have the skill to bring about the Nauglimir or other items that could compliment the Silmaril, another thing completely to alter something the Valar had hallowed.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

The Dead rise to fulfill their oaths.

I don't think there's any real in-canon support for the Arkenstone being a Silmaril. This is fairly clearly intended to not be the case. As much as it's impossible to prove a negative, Tolkien would clearly have mentioned this somewhere.

That said...

First, I think it's pretty clear from Rateliff's History of The Hobbit that Tolkien borrowed a lot of things wholesale from his mythology when writing The Hobbit and there is not much stretching involved to say that the Arkenstone is an ersatz Silmaril. When The Hobbit gets integrated into the mythos "for real" with the writing of The Lord of the Rings, these connections are either decanonised or rewritten or recast--Mirkwood cannot BE Taur-nu-Fuin, nor the Great River Sirion.

This I like, and in this respect I would be willing to concede that the Arkentone is a Silmaril of sorts.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

In this case there is no doubt about it, not even the shadow of a penumbra in which Balrog wings exist.

Tolkien tells us that Feanor made the substance of the Silmarils "more strong than adamant, so that no violence could mar or break it within the Kingdom of Arda." But we are told of the Arkenstone that "the Dwarves had cut and shaped it into myriad facets."

Nope. No Dwarf or anyone else in Arda is shaping and faceting a Silmaril.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Tolkien tells us that Feanor made the substance of the Silmarils "more strong than adamant, so that no violence could mar or break it within the Kingdom of Arda." But we are told of the Arkenstone that "the Dwarves had cut and shaped it into myriad facets."

Where are you getting that last quote? I’m searching but can’t find a source for its making.

[Inziladun]

I haven’t examined this thread thoroughly enough to know if this quote has been added already, but it seems to lay the matter to rest.

The Noldor also it was who first achieved the making of gems; and the fairest of all gems were the Silmarils, and they are lost.

The Silmarillion Of the Beginning of Days

How much more finality does one require?

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I haven’t examined this thread thoroughly enough to know if this quote has been added already, but it seems to lay the matter to rest.

The Silmarillion Of the Beginning of Days

How much more finality does one require?

I’d argue the The Silmarillion was written before The Hobbit and set before it by a wide margin. If we take the approach that these are all just translations vs Tolkien’s writings I put very little stock in the finality of its authors.

I mean I can write “my headphones are lost” does this mean I will never find them? Ever? “Lost” only has finality as a euphemism for death. And in Tolkien’s world that’s not even a definite.

“But what was lost may yet be found”-Gandalf council of Elrond

In fact the entire debate about the ring is losing it won’t be good enough. Eventually it’ll be found even from the deepest oceans.

As for shaping it, I easily interpret that as it being in a volcano rock that they chipped away to reveal it.

Is the Arkenstone a Silmaril? I don’t know. I do know arguments against it aren’t the most compelling I’ve read, after reading most of this thread.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

I’d argue the The Silmarillion was written before The Hobbit and set before it by a wide margin. If we take the approach that these are all just translations vs Tolkien’s writings I put very little stock in the finality of its authors.

To me, that points at the "canonicity" issue, and if we're going there, then all bets are off, and anything is possible.

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

I mean I can write “my headphones are lost” does this mean I will never find them? Ever? “Lost” only has finality as a euphemism for death. And in Tolkien’s world that’s not even a definite.

Yet, the Silmarils are consistently written as being important to a specific time in the history of Arda, with no indication they would ever again be a matter for the Children of Ilúvatar to be concerned.

As for Gandalf's remark at the Council of Elrond, for one thing, he was merely quoting Saruman's thoughts on Sauron's ideas about the One Ring's whereabouts.
Second, that comment was certainly valid for the Great Rings, as Gandalf told Frodo they "had a way of being found". But they were Sauron's work, and their propensity for attracting potential "owners" was due to a malevolent power.
I do not see the same characteristic in the Silmarils, because from all indications in the annals of Arda, their purpose was accomplished: they were in secure places where they would indefinitely preserve the light of the Trees, while being safeguarded from all, whether good, bad, or in-between.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Yet, the Silmarils are consistently written as being important to a specific time in the history of Arda, with no indication they would ever again be a matter for the Children of Ilúvatar to be concerned.

That’s certainly an interpretation, but again I’m not sure that’s an argument against their reappearance. Again I haven’t studied the Silmarillion or even read it so I only have surface level understanding through this thread and some articles, but it does seem to me the reemergence of light from the trees is if nothing else an excellent symbolic sign of strength. And we do know the stone is said to burn the unworthy Bilbo’s inherent place in the War of the Ring would make him worthy and Thorin (iirc) doesn’t handle it until he learns the wisdom of Bilbo.

Annoyingly I think if I were to stake a position on the affair it’d be agnosticism to say for sure it’s a Silmaril is equally a folly as to say it’s not.

As for everyone who keeps comparing this discussion to whether or not Balrogs have wings well, that is far more clear with one side being definitively wrong.